4.7 Article

Ethno-veterinary uses and informants consensus factor of medicinal plants of Sariska region, Rajasthan, India

期刊

JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 133, 期 1, 页码 14-25

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2010.08.054

关键词

Ethno-veterinary; Informants consensus factor; Use value; Ethnomedicine; Phytomedicine

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim of study: The study was conducted in Sariska region of Rajasthan, India to identify the important species used for ethno-veterinary medicine; finding out methods for various ethno-veterinary medicine preparations, and calculate the informant consensus factor (ICF) in relation to medicinal plant use. Materials and methods: An ethno-veterinary survey was carried out in the Sariska region of Rajasthan, India. A total of 490 informants (287 men, 203 women) belonging mainly to families which had strong links with animal keeping activities of the area were interviewed using 'specimen display' method and forest walk method. Results: The highest ICF (0.61) was scored for the digestive problems including ailments stomachache, indigestion, liver expansion, diarrhea, intestinal worms, and stomach disorder. Citrullus colocynthis is used for fever and general sickness, with a highest use value (UV) of 0.62. While Pedalium murex, and Ziziphus nummularia used for diarrhea (UV = 0.57) and Azadirachta indica, used as antiseptic, in foot and mouth disease and prevention from diseases were reported with a UV 0.51. Conclusions: The documentation of this inherited rich traditional ethno-medicinal knowledge has provided novel information and this will not only provide recognition of this undocumented knowledge but will also help in conservation of such rare, gradually vanishing important ethno-veterinary species. It will also provide new pharmacological dimensions for better health care of the human being regarding many ailments. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据